A communal effort

Editor’s note: Paul J. Strasser is managing director of Netherlands-based research firm MSI-ITM and president of MSI International, a King of Prussia, Pa., research firm. Michael T. Foley is business development director of MSI-ITM.

Ask a group of typical research professionals about online research panels and chances are you’ll hear variations on the same response: “Those people are just in it for the money” or “The same people are in multiple panels all over the world,” most likely followed by, “Panels are not representative.” Before you accept the conventional wisdom on these topics, we’d like to share our experience managing a global online community, PlanetPanel.

The perceptions above are generalizations that don’t necessarily capture the full story of online research communities. Panel members are not a homogenous group of survey-takers trolling the Internet looking to make a fast buck. And recent reports, papers and articles suggest that, compared to random-digit dialing, results from high-quality online panels can be representative in nearly all ways, except in markets where online penetration falls below certain thresholds. But that’s a topic that has been dealt with before.

Misperceptions about online panels may be a lingering hangover from the past, when many of the early methods for conducting online consumer research were not much more than glorified e-mail lists or only focused on a narrow segment of tech-savvy consumers. However, most modern online research vehicles are high-quality dynamic communities which attract an interesting mix of respondents.

Here’s another new wrinkle to enliven the debate. Consumers increasingly are expressing a preference for online surveys versus telephone surveys (see Figure 1). A study among MSI-ITM’s PlanetPanel members shows that nearly all (98 percent) prefer online surveys to telephone surveys. Surprisingly, more than half say they no longer participate in telephone surveys because online surveys are less intrusive, more convenient and more private (see Figure 2). This suggests that online panels are reaching a segment that won’t be accessible by telephone. So while online research will never cover the offline population, online communities may be the best way to cover the growing and increasingly influential online population.

But let’s get back to the “they’re only in it for the money” premise. Is this true? Our extensive studies of community members indicate that in fact financial gain is not the main motivator for many. Participants derive a variety of benefits from sharing their opinions in a global online community - money could be one of them, but is definitely not the only one.

Three types of value-seekers in online communities

As part of an ongoing effort to understand the needs of our online community, we continuously monitor members. This includes regular satisfaction studies, short satisfaction diagnostics at the end of each survey and one-to-one interviews with selected members who are choosing to leave. Not surprising: We learned that on a basic level, consumers are looking for value in return for information they provide. Perhaps more surprising: Not all of our online community members define value in purely monetary terms. We segmented three primary types of value seekers: Mavens, Online Connecteds and Pay-to-Play.

Mavens are highly motivated by the opportunity to give opinions and influence product decisions. This manifests in their interactions with friends and relatives as well as behavior in an online community. They see market research as an easy way to give information to companies on the types of products and services they’d like to see them develop. Not only do Mavens like to give opinions, but they also want to understand how those opinions are acted upon and hear about the new products and services that are developed as a result of their participation in market research studies.

Online Connecteds are more motivated by the ability to connect to others than the opportunity to offer opinions or earn money. Connecteds want to belong. The more a panel experience feels like a true community, the more satisfied they feel. They visit the community home page often to see what’s new, find out about the latest winners or review results of instant polls. They like to know about fellow members and the people running the community. Many appreciate the regular survey invitations telling them that their participation is urgently needed.

The Pay-to-Play group is focused on participating in an equitable exchange: I give you valuable information and you give me something worthwhile in return. Cash is preferred, but non-financial rewards would also be considered, as long as they deem the reward to be of sufficient value - a fair exchange for their contribution. Some prefer a small reward for each survey; others prefer the opportunity to win a much larger prize in a drawing.

Beyond segmenting types of value-seekers, our studies of community members also revealed that long-term members are more likely than new members to mention “expressing my opinions” and “improving products” as reasons for being in the panel and less likely to reference financial incentives (see Figure 3).

This suggests two implications. First, the impact of monetary incentives may decrease over time and other participation motivators may take on greater importance. Or, in the long run, Mavens and Online Connecteds may be more likely to remain active in an online community.

Future research will shed more light on this. One conclusion is clear, however: maintaining online community satisfaction and participation is a complex and evolving challenge which requires a multi-faceted approach to address a diverse set of needs and expectations.

Community manager - a new discipline emerges

To effectively leverage an online community as a rigorous data collection resource, you need an in-depth understanding of members and the dynamics of their response behavior.

At MSI-ITM, we have developed a new discipline to address this: community manager. This function focuses not on clients and research studies but on understanding the needs of community members in order to facilitate high-quality response.

At the core of community management is relationship-building. Since members vary in their expectations and motivations around panel participation a “one size fits all” approach won’t work in the long run. And, one needs to consider cultural preferences when meeting expectations around the world. A two-way relationship, with both sides communicating about what’s expected, is most productive.

The community manager’s job is even more important given the empowerment of online panel members. If a community experience is not satisfying, members can simply quit and join a panel that is satisfying. Thanks to the Internet, it’s very easy to discover other online communities and just as easy to shift your allegiance.

We believe online research communities are here to stay. With Internet penetration increasing around the world, the convenience of online interviewing and the intrusiveness of traditional telephone surveys, it is likely that the Web will be the data collection vehicle of choice for our audiences.

But we can no longer expect survey respondents to complete questionnaires with nothing in return. Nor can we expect the convenience of the Web to overcome the intrusiveness of an excessively long interview. We can’t disregard the needs of panel participants just because we encounter them online. Online panel members are real people, with real power. Successful online research panels must be viewed as a community of individual members, with different needs, motivations and expectations. Understanding those needs and exchanging the appropriate value in return for the information we seek is critical.